Dismissed

Manohar Thakru v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2023Acq. App./109/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed two acquittal appeals challenging acquittals in Sessions Trials involving serious offences like rape and culpable homicide. The Court upheld the trial court's findings due to gross discrepancies in prosecution evidence and lack of cogent identification evidence, noting the case against the accused should be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal Appeals No.105 of 2018 and No.109 of 2018 were dismissed; impugned acquittal judgments were affirmed.

Manohar Thakru Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

Acquittal Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶4

Manohar Thakur @ Manahar Thakur aged about 43 years, s/o Rameshwar Thakur, r/o village Koila, PO & PS-Mahagama, District-Godda, presently residing at Ramnagar Majdoor Basti, Kamarbhita, PO & PS-Jalpaiguri, District-Sahudangirhat (W.B) …... Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Chakradhar Thakur, s/o Shaligram Thakur r/o village-Koila, PO & PSMahagama, District-Godda …... Respondents

¶8

with

¶9

Acquittal Appeal (D.B) No.109 of 2018

¶10

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

2.Rudal Thakur

¶14

Vijay Thakur both s/o Shaligram Thakur

¶15

Santosh Thakur, s/o Chakradhar Thakur

¶16

All r/o village Koila, PO & PS-Mahagama, District-Godda

¶17

…... Respondents

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶19

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP ---------

¶20

O R D E R 17^th April 2023

¶21

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶22

I.A No.4631 of 2022 (in Acquittal Appeal No.105 of 2018) and I.A No.4650 of 2019 (in Acquittal Appeal No.109 of 2018)

¶23

These interlocutory applications have been filed by the applicant Manohar Thakur @ Manahar Thakur for grant of leave against the impugned judgments of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No.78 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No.87 of 2007.

¶24

In view of proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal

¶25

2 Acq. Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶26

with Acq. Appeal 109 of 2018

¶27

Procedure, I.A No.4631 of 2022 (in Acquittal Appeal No.105 of 2018) and I.A No.4650 of 2019 (in Acquittal Appeal No.109 of 2018) are allowed. Acquittal Appeal No.105 of 2018 with Acquittal Appeal (D.B)No.109 of 2018

¶28

Acquittal Appeal No.105 of 2018 has been filed to challenge the judgment of acquittal of Chakradhar Thakur recorded in Sessions Trial No.78 of 2005.

¶29

Acquittal Appeal No.109 of 2018 has been filed to challenge the judgment of acquittal of Rudal Thakur, Vijay Thakur and Santosh Thakur in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2007.

¶30

These acquittal appeals have been filed by Manohar Thakur on the basis of whose fardbeyan Mahagama PS Case No.151 of 2004 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 341, 342, 452, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against Chakradhar Thakur, Rudal Thakur, Vijay Thakur, Santosh Thakur and 8-10 unknown persons.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that in the midnight of 28^th December 2004 Chakradhar Thakur, Rudal Thakur, Vijay Thakur and Santosh Thakur along with 8-10 other accused all armed with deadly weapons; Chakradhar Thakur was carrying a spear , Rudal Thakur and Vijay Thakur had farsa in their hands and Santosh Thakur was holding lathi – forced entered into the house of the informant and caused injuries to him, his uncle, mother and cousin and took away Rs.47,000/- in cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.15,000/- kept in two VIP suitcases. The injured persons were taken to Mahagama Hospital where they were administered First-aid and thereafter forwarded to Bhagalpur for further treatment.

¶32

During the trial of Sessions Trial No.78 of 2005 the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses out of whom the informant is PW10. To prove the charge under sections 147, 452, 380, 307/149 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has laid in evidence injury reports of Bishnu Thakur PW1, Sushila Devi PW2, Rameshwar Thakur PW3, Parvati Devi PW5, Sushil Kumar Thakur PW6 and Manohar Thakur PW10 vide Exhibits-1 to 1/5.

¶33

To set-up a defence that they were falsely implicated in the case, the accused persons have produced 8 witnesses.

¶34

3 Acq. Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶35

with Acq. Appeal 109 of 2018

¶36

They have also laid in evidence certified copy of Batwaranama filed in G.R. No.343 of 1982 as Exhibit-A, signature of Sinheshwar Thakur over Batwaranama vide Exhibit-A/1, certified copy of judgment of G.R No.343 of 1982 vide Exhibit-B, certified copy of the order dated 7^th June 1984 of SDJM, Godda in T.R No.1754 of 1984 as Exhibit-C, certified copy of the report of Mahagama PS, in non-FIR No.257 of 2004 under section 107 of the Cr.PC as Exhibit-D, certified copy of the order passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.238 of 2003 before SDJM Godda on 5^th May 2003, 8^th July 2003 and 17^th July 2003 as Exhibit-E, certified copy of the petition under section 144 of the Cr.PC filed in Crl Misc.Case No.238 of 2003 as Exhibit-F, copy of Misc. Petition No.47 of 2002 as Exhibit-G, certified copy of the order passed in PCR Case No.10 of 2005 dated 9^th January 2008 as Exhibit-H and the copy of PCR Case No.10 of 2005 as Exhibit-I.

¶37

In Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2007, the defence has also examined 7 witnesses who are DW1 Sitaram Thakur, DW2 Kailash Das, DW3 Baleshwar Yadav, DW4 Prasadi Das, DW5 Kuldip Das, DW6 Buddhu Ravidas and DW7 Pramila Devi. The defence has also laid in evidence certified copy of Panchnama filed in G.R No.343 of 1982 as Exhibit-A and the copy of Judgment of G.R No.343 of 1982 as Exhibit-B.

¶38

In Sessions Trial No.78 of 2005 the Investigating Officer of the case has not been produced during the trial. Whereas, in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2007 which was registered against Rudal Thakur, Santosh Thakur and Vijay Thakur, the doctor who has examined and proved the injury reports of the prosecution witnesses in the other sessions trial has not been examined.

¶39

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution witnesses have tendered evidence in both the sessions trials on similar lines and, therefore, these acquittal appeals can be heard together.

¶40

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has taken us through paragraph no. 27 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2007 to submit that the learned trial Judge has failed to apply correct test to scrutinize the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish

¶41

4 Acq. Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶42

with Acq. Appeal 109 of 2018

¶43

the place of occurrence, the number of accused persons and the weapon held by them, the occurrence could not have been disbelieved by the trial Judge to record the judgment of acquittal.

¶44

In Sessions Trial No.87 of 2007 the learned trial Judge has held

¶45

as under:

¶46

“ 27. In this way from the prosecution witnesses who are the victims and the neighbours as well as agnates have put forth a thoroughly inconsistent and unreliable story as regards even the number of all the accused persons, place of occurrence, sequence and manner of assault, manner of possession of arms by different accused persons and the alleged injuries inflicted by them as two witnesses have added the name Gurudev Thakur as one of the assaulters. Further one witness is telling about assault upon the mother of the informant Sushila Devi at first whereas she herself has stated that she was the last to be assaulted. Her son informant had stated about sleeping of all the victims in the same house and whereas some one has told regarding sleeping of Rameshwar Thakur at veranda and some one about Sushila Devi at the veranda. Some of the witnesses have stated regarding the time of occurrence as moonlit night whereas the informant himself including few others have stated that it was a dark night. The family members of Ravindra Thakur witnessed the occurrence from his roof and stated that none of them came to their rescue nor even visited them in the night during such serious occurrence of assault in which Rameshwar Thakur and Sushila Devi both became unconscious after being thrashed by the accused persons. None of the villagers turned up as well. Regarding the injury one of the witnesses has even stated that one the legs of Rameshwar Thakur was severed and above all none of the witnesses made any reference regarding culmination of the occurrence either by assembly of the people or taking away of the victims to the hospital or P.S. rather they have stated that they had visited the P.S. in the next morning which itself put a big question mark upon the entire story of such serious attacks by different accused persons in which two injured became unconscious as well. The detailed description of possession of different arms by different accused persons in the darkness of mid night seems undoubtedly improbable. The injury reports of all the injured persons in no way match the injuries said to be inflicted by the accused persons. Further all of them have been examined by the doctor on 29.12.04 at 9.30 am to 10.20 a.m. without making any reference of the states of unconsciousness of any of the victims. The relations between the parties having common ancestor has however been admitted and also the petition by the informant for eviction of the premises against the accused persons has been referred to.”

¶47

The indisputed facts appearing from the materials on record would indicate that there was a land dispute between the parties; the members of the prosecution party are agnates of the accused persons; a mutual deed of partition was drawn between the parties a copy of which was filed in the proceeding of G.R No.343 of 1982 and; there is a reference of Vijay Thakur suffering injuries in the occurrence.

¶48

5 Acq. Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶49

with Acq. Appeal 109 of 2018

¶50

The land dispute between the parties was raging since last quarter a century. The prosecution witnesses who are intimately related to each other are therefore labelled as interested witnesses and their testimony has been challenged on the ground that it is laced with motive. The learned trial Judge has held that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses is not consistent as regards (i) manner of assault (ii) weapons held by the accused (iii) place of occurrence and (iv) injuries to the prosecution witnesses. In a case like the present one in which the Court has to examine testimony of the prosecution witnesses with care and caution, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be disturbed on mere showing some evidence in support of the prosecution case.

¶51

In a criminal trial, this is of seminal importance that the accused is identified and the role played by him is described by producing sufficient, cogent, clear and convincing evidence. In “Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer”AIR 1956 SC 404 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the prosecution comes out with a definite case a duty is cast upon it to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Now in a situation where the prosecution evidence is discrepant as to sufficiency of light, the identification of the accused by the informant and other prosecution witnesses would be on a slipper ground. Ravindranath Thakur (PW8 in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2005 and PW1 in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2007) has stated that it was a moonlit night whereas Sushil Kumar Thakur ( PW6 in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2005 and PW5 in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2007) and Manohar Thakur (PW10 in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2005 and PW8 in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2007) have deposed in the Court that it was a dark night. Furthermore, Rukmini Devi (PW7 in both the sessions trials ) and Ravindranath Thakur (PW8 in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2005 and PW1 in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2007) have stated that they could see the occurrence from roof top.

¶52

In this state of affairs, the identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence of the Court. The learned trial Judge has also disbelieved the prosecution story that the occurrence took place in the midnight of 28^th December 2004. In this context, we also do not find any plausible explanation from the prosecution why the injured witnesses were sent to Mahagama Hospital about 8 hours after they suffered

¶53

¶54

Acq. Appeal No.105 of 2018

¶55

with Acq. Appeal 109 of 2018

¶56

injuries allegedly at the hands of the accused persons – some of the injuries are grievous.

¶57

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, we have formed an opinion that the prosecution has suppressed the real version of the occurrence. There are so many discrepancies in the prosecution evidence so as to render the prosecution case doubtful. The prosecution evidence contains more chaff than grain and this is one aspect of the matter which has persuaded us not to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 78 of 2005 and 87 of 2007 and, consequently, Acquittal Appeal Nos.105 of 2018 and 109 of 2018 are dismissed.

¶58

Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned.

¶59

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶60

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶61

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated:17^th April 2023 Sudhir /NAFR

Manohar Thakru v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Thakru v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Aminuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baby Farzana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhiram Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjani Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siya Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand